"Humanism and the Fundamentalist Perspective on Homosexuality" by Paul Ricci.

Quote of the Month.

"Discussion of Our Current National Crisis" by Juan Bernal, Ph.D

"Notes on the 9/11 Discussion in Oct." by Dave Silva.

"Letter to the Ventura County Star" by Charlotte Poe.

Humor - "Short Takes" by George Carlin.

"The National Reform Association's Long Running Quest for a Christian America" by Rob Boston.

At the November 18^th Meeting: Ricci and Rulon talk about homosexuality.

"HUMANISM AND THE FUNDAMENTALIST PERSPECTIVE ON HOMOSEXUALITY"

BY PAUL RICCI

It all started when a pair of religious conservatives complained before the Board of the Anaheim Union High School District about a few books regarding famous homosexuals that were placed in a Middle school library in the city of Cypress. They requested the books be removed because of the harm to the students of the school and because they didn't think it appropriate that gay/lesbian "lifestyles" be presented as legitimate as heterosexual "lifestyles." The controversy eventually brought in the ACLU, which opposed the removal of the books from the library shelves but was resolved in a compromise with the AUHS District. I wrote a letter to the weekly NEWS-ENTERPRISE, published in Los Alamitos, opposing the fundamentalist attack on the gay/lesbian books,

and the battle was on, though it has now subsided after some six months involving dozens of letters-to-the-editors. The fundies in this area insisted on demonizing homosexuals and I found it was based, primarily, though not entirely, on THE LAW OF HOLINESS in Leviticus 20:13-14 of the Old Testament which reads: "If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they both commit an abomination. They shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon their own heads."

What I would like to do for the presentation is to show how those who believe in Biblical inerrancy, that the Bible is the true word of God and cannot be wrong in any of its contents, have dealt with the issue of homosexuality; how they have twisted and turned the evidence of science to make it say what they want it to say so they can claim the evidence of science is on their side as well as religion. Of course, by "religion" they mean their particular interpretation of Holy Scripture, which is not how other more liberal and tolerant Christians think about the matter. (One of these conservative thinkers told me that anyone who differs from his interpretation were apostates, not "true" Christians!) I have found that the tactics they have used to convince their followers of the evils of the homosexual "lifestyle" are quite similar to those used by Creationists to convince their followers of the truth of Creation "science."

Chuck Rulon, who spoke eloquently at our meeting in September, will inform us of the facts regarding homosexual behavior and how Humanist thought is more in accordance with the results of science, and more humane, than are the beliefs and values of the religious conservatives.

We will share the program and look forward to commenting upon any questions you might have regarding the above. Be advised, however, that I'm outside my area of expertise regarding factual matters about homosexuality and thus rely upon the experts in the field such as Mr.Rulon, other biologists, as well as sociologists and psychologists.

 Quote of the Month:

"Mythology distracts us everywhere, for the greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, contrived and dishonest. But the myth: persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

Anonymous.

Let us start with the question: What can humanists contribute to this discussion:

I propose that humanists can offer a word of caution and some rational reflection at a time of such strong feelings. Maybe we can remind people that, even in a time of national crisis, our thinking should be guided by reason, factual knowledge and well-grounded beliefs, not emotion, mindless "patriotism" and the demand for vengeance. Donald Wells, in this book, The War Myth. tells us that one of the casualties of war is good sense and a respect for the facts. The citizens, in time of war, are susceptible to any argument which makes them appear virtuous, and which demeans the aims of their opponents.... The line between education and propaganda is a narrow one in issues such as war, but there is, nonetheless, a clear line between truth and falsehood, and between valid and invalid inference." (p. 77)

Humanists can remind people that in times of war or international conflict people are prone to accept the myth that our side represents all that is good and the enemy represents all that is bad. Wells refers to this as the "myth of good and bad nations," and goes on to say that we delude ourselves with the conviction that our cause is always some cosmically virtuous principle, while our enemies always wage war for icons of clay and for immediate and immoral goods." (p. 76)

But most Americans likely would reject Well’s point and would agree with our president when he states that the United States is fully justified in carrying out its bombing attacks on Afghanistan and that our actions represent moral good and moral right.

In line with his view of good versus evil, President Bush kept referring to Osama Bin Laden as the "Evil One," at his latest news conference (Oct. 11), and ended his briefing on our bombing raids on Afghanistan by again proclaiming "God Bless America," suggesting that God sanctions our military effort.

However, in light of centuries in which one group of human beings have invoked their ‘god(s)’ as they slaughtered another group of human beings, any rational, informed person should be suspicious of politicians’ references to God and the assumption that God is on our side. This is especially true in light of the fact that the perpetrators of the September 11 hijackings also emphasized that they were doing "God’s work."

Consider these excerpts from a letter by one the of hijackers to this cohorts:

(The letter was published by LA TIMES in its Sept. 29, edition.) We should not understate the death and destruction caused by the terrorists and the great sorrow and suffering inflicted on the families and relatives of the victims; and we can give President Bush credit for his attempts to comfort those families and reassure Americans in the wake of such a brutal attack on our citizens.

However, much of Bush’s rhetoric implies a very simplistic view of our current national crisis, viz, that we are a good nation under attack by an evil force. Against such a view, I shall note the following:

When you suffer an attack by an evil force (even if it is clearly evil), it does not thereby make the victim a representative of all that’s good. It simply makes him a victim. It is comforting to think that the United States represents the good and that our nation is declaring war on evil; but this surely a gross oversimplification of complicated affairs, and false on the face of it (at least the part about our being the force of the good).

We are a society of human beings, a mixed bag at best. There is much good here, but also much that is not so good (just ask the native Americans whose cultures were destroyed by an earlier U.S. society). Likewise, our government is a human institution; some governmental actions and policies are good; but some not so good. (If you doubt this, just ask a person from a third-world nation, which has interactions with the U.S.) Again, we have a mixed bag, some good and some bad.

As for war, we can study history and find nothing resembling a war, which was all-good; war brings with it much suffering and many evil deeds. Even wars that could be fairly classified as just wars, or wars to defend national existence, are mixed bags; much suffering, death, injustice, evil, etc. result from any war. It is simply a comforting fiction to believe that in undertaking a war we are doing what is good, pure and simple, and that God is on our side. War may be necessary and may even be good national policy (this is very debatable); but never a cosmic, pure good. In addition, I present these observations and questions for discussion: In these days of nearly universal prayer sessions and constant declarations of "God bless America," we might remind others that even secular humanists and non-theists may have been among the victims, and that non-believers, some of whom have difficulty with the "God bless America" declarations, are also good citizens who pay homage to the victims in other ways.

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the general consensus was that "someone must pay" and that military action would be our nation’s response to the terrorists’ attack on our people. Since then the United States, with the overwhelming approval of its citizens, has carried on air warfare, and is starting ground military action, against the Taliban and the "Al Qaeda" terrorist network in Afghanistan. The officially stated immediate aim is to bring the guilty ones to justice.

Is the military option the only one available for bringing the guilty to justice? Do you think the U.S. can identify and apprehend those guilty for the September 11 attacks?

Our government and military leaders, including the president, also state that, in addition to bringing the "Al Qaeda" terrorists and their supporters to justice, the United States will wage a "long war" to eliminate all international terrorist organizations, wherever they may be. This is a "tall order," likely not achievable. However, even if it could be achieved, we would still be a long way from achieving peace and justice in the world.

In his post-attack rhetoric, President Bush has stated that he aims to "eradicate all evil from the world" Does this imply that he will deal with the political and economic conditions that result in so much hatred and hostility directed to the U.S.? Does he also propose to eradicate all hunger, oppression and suffering from the world?

Given that historically nations have frequently resorted to warfare for a variety of reasons, and it’s likely that few of these reasons could justify the death, destruction and suffering that war brings, we can ask: Can we really achieve any kind of justice, whether it be retributive or distributive justice, by resorting to war?

Should the United States take on the role of a world police force?

Do we have any reason for believing that war is a way to bring about a better world?

Is a war policy worthy of a morally mature society with all that war entails? Does morality have anything to do with war? Is war outside the scope of morality or can we show that there are cases of morally justifiable wars? Even in cases where war achieved some positive end, has the end achieved ever been worth the price paid? Has war, even a war to defend against an aggressor, ever achieved other than mixed results, some good and some bad?

Does the call for unity mean that criticism of the Bush administration is unpatriotic? What is patriotism? Does patriotism and loyalty mean unquestioning agreement with the political and military leadership of the country? Is there no place for criticism, debate and dissent?

How many of our constitutional rights to privacy and personal freedom of action are we willing to give up for the sake of preventing domestic terrorism?

"In God we trust," declare our politicians and preachers. But our country has never relied on God’s protection; instead our nation has achieved the status of a super military power with a nuclear arsenal second to none. In what sense does our nation trust in God? Or is this simply a way of talking, signifying little or nothing?

"God bless America" is another favorite phrase of our politicians and fellow citizens. Is there any rational justification for the claim that "God" sanctions and blesses our national policies and actions, including the use of modern warfare against other groups that we designate criminal or enemy?

NOTES ON THE 9/11 DISCUSSION IN OCT.

By Dave Silva

All this "God" talk makes Humanists feel we are being marginalized by our fellow Americans and that all we can do is go to meetings and talk about what we are thinking and feeling. However, I think that this is a very useful thing for us to do. There are 27 million freethinkers in this country and especially now America needs to hear our rational perspective.

How can we deny this is a religious war when the terrorists that attack us (and the millions of Islamic fundamentalists who support them) say this is a "religious war"? However, if this is truly a "War on Terrorism" then it is essentially a battle between rational thought and fanatical thinking. Fanatical thinking is the cornerstone of terrorist action. In this case acts of terror are justified by religious dogma. However, it could be Communist dogma, Neo-nazi dogma or, the abortion clinic bomber who is "just doing God's will". There are even environmental terrorists who are driven to violence by the consuming belief in the rightness of their cause and the belief that others must be forced to believe as they do.

There are simply no potential terrorists among Humanists, because we are opposed to fanatical thinking, magical thinking and inflexible dogmas. We wouldn't be Humanists if we thought otherwise. At some point every terrorist comes to believe that the ends justify the means and abandons compromise and tolerance. This is what we have to offer our country, and the world, in a war against terrorism. We hold the only weapon that can defeat terrorism; rational thought. We are not alone in this battle between freedom of thought and fanaticism; there are many religious people who embrace humanistic values and rational thought. While we are not pacifists we realize that in any war that the truth is often the first casualty.

Lou Regal expressed some of the off-the-cuff remarks from his right-wing friends, such as; "Let's nuke-em till they glow!" or "We are just going to have to kill all the Muslims." Such simply minded solutions do remind us that we still live in Orange County.

There was discussion as to whether Christianity or Islam was the more violent religion. Some voiced the opinion that this discussion was not productive because it simply served to polarize different groups of people. On the other hand it is important to understand why religion does lead to violence if religious people are to avoid violent acts.

 On Monday, October 1, 2001, USA TODAY featured a guest editorial by Kathleen Parker titled "God, country gain fragile new toehold."

Ms. Parker wrote.

"One can't help notice the silence of atheists these days," she declares. "War has that effect. There are no atheists in foxholes, we've always known. There were none in the World Trade Center on September 11, we can guess. And now there are none anywhere to be found ..." Parker continues on to attack separation of church and state.

Charlotte Poe, Founder and President of the Freethinkers of Ventura County submitted this letter to the Ventura County Star and the LA Times, and USA Today:

Many have expressed, in this time of crisis: "Where are the atheists and freethinkers?"

We are here. We are one out of every ten of your neighbors, coworkers, friends and family -- 600 of the 6000 dead in this tragedy. Most of us are largely silent, for fear of ostracism.

Indeed, we are the last persecuted minority. Nowadays, even homosexuals have gained a foothold of tolerance. Atheists are the only ones left in the closet.

Even Star Jones of ABC's "The View" has stated that she would never vote for an atheist as president.

There is a tide sweeping this nation, attempting to combine god-belief with patriotism. "God Bless America" has been sung more times than our anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner."

In my group, the Freethinkers of Ventura County [CA], we have several veterans. These people were atheists in foxholes, on battleships, and in fighter jets.

It is with an overwhelming feeling of sadness that I see this great country disregarding the care that our forefathers took to preserve the separation of religion and government. It is exactly this separation which makes our nation great. We have the freedom to practice any religion -- or none. This should be no gauge of patriotism.

We should definitely be cautious when it comes to blurring the lines between faith in our country and faith in a supernatural being. Nazi soldiers proudly wore belt buckles proclaiming: "Gott mit uns!" ("God is with us!).

Please do not shut out your fellow non-religious Americans when you proudly wave your flag.

SHORT TAKES

by George Carlin

It isn’t generally known, but you can save money on phone calls by simply not letting the other person talk. Studies have shown that on many phone calls as much as 50 percent of the talking is done by the other person. If you can mange to dominate the conversation, you can save money.

Do you realize that somewhere in the world there exists a person that qualifies as the worst doctor? If you took the time, by process of elimination you could actually determine the worst doctor in the world. And the funny part Is knowing that someone has an appointment to see him tomorrow.

Who decides when the applause should die down? It seems like It’s a group decision; everyone begins to say to themselves at the same time, "Well, okay, that’s enough of that."

Can placebos cause side effects? If so, are the side effects real?

Watching television these days, I often wonder what happened to the "vertical hold" knob. I miss that.

Electricity is really just organized lightning.

Here’s how to get rid of counterfeit money: Put it in the collection plate at church

When people say "clean as a whistle," they forget that a whistle is full of spit.

The caterpillar does all the work; the butterfly gets all the publicity.

People in Washington say it’s not the initial offense that gets you in trouble, it’s the cover-up. They say you should admit what you did, get the story out, and move on. What this overlooks is the fact that most of the time the cover-up works just fine, and nobody finds out a thing. I would imagine that’s the rule rather than the exception. My advice: Take a chance. Lie.

When I was young I used to read about the decline of Western civilization, and I decided It was something I would like to make a contribution to.

In restaurants where they serve frog’s legs, what do they do with the rest of the frog? Do they just throw it away? You never see "frog torsos" on the menu. Is there actually a garbage can full of frog bodies in the alley?. I wouldn’t want to be a homeless guy looking for an unfinished cheeseburger and open the lid on that.

I have a very inexpensive security system. If someone breaks into my house, I run next door and throw a brick through my neighbor’s window. That sets off his alarm and when the police arrive I direct them to my house.

Here’s a great idea: A roach spray that doesn’t kill the roach, but, instead, fills him with self-doubt as to whether or not he’s in the right house.

Many people think they have to lie to get out of jury duty. You don’t have to lie; tell the judge the truth. Tell him you’ll make a really good juror because you can spot guilty people just by looking at them. Explain that it has something to do with how far apart their eyes are. I guarantee you’ll be out of that courtroom before you can say "justice sucks."

 "The National Reform Association's Long-Running Quest For A 'Christian America'"

By Rob Boston

Reprinted from "Church and State, Oct. 2001"

The National Reform Association’s attempts to "Christianize" the United States are nothing new. In fact, the group has been at it for 137 years.

Founded in 1864 by a coalition of conservative Protestant ministers, the NRA’s top goal was to add a "Christian nation" amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ministers were convinced that the Civil War was God’s vengeance on America for omitting religious language from the Constitution, and they sought to rectify that situation.

The remedy, NRA supporters believed, was to rewrite the Preamble to the Constitution. The group’s proposal, put forth that same year, sought to add language "humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, [and] His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government."

Despite a heavy lobbying campaign, Congress remained skeptical. The House of Representatives rejected the amendment in 1874 and 1896. Recommending a vote against it in 1874, the House Judiciary Committee cited "the dangers which the union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations of the Old World

The NRA continued to advocate for the "Christian nation" amendment, but its influence began to dwindle after the turn of the century, and the group soon lapsed into obscurity. According to the Rev. Jeffrey A. Ziegler, current NRA president, the organization sealed its fate by endorsing Prohibition. Many of the Presbyterians who formed the core of the group were not teetotalers and drifted away.

In 1950, a brief flurry of activity temporarily resuscitated the organization, at that time based in Topeka, when Congress considered yet another Christian nation" amendment.

The proposal, introduced by Sen. Ralph Flanders, a Vermont Republican, would have added language that "devoutly recognizes the Authority and Law of Jesus Christ, Savior and Ruler of nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of liberty."

The new "Christian nation" amendment was an even bigger bust than its predecessors, and it was never reported out of committee. Efforts to revive it in 1961, ‘63 and ‘65 were unsuccessful.

In the late 1990s, Christian Reconstructionists took over the ailing NRA and gave it a new shot of life. Today, however, NRA leaders do not consider passage of a "Christian nation" amendment a priority.

"From a political and practical standpoint, we are not there, and we won’t be there for some time," said Ziegler. "It probably won’t happen in my lifetime. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other things we can do in the meantime."